Designation: D 5719 – 95 (Reapproved 2000)
Standard Guide for
Simulation of Subsurface Airflow Using Ground-Water Flow
Modeling Codes1
This standard is issued under the fixed designation D 5719; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope
1.1 This guide covers the use of a ground-water flow
modeling code to simulate the movement of air in the subsur-
face. This approximation is possible because the form of the
ground-water flow equations are similar in form to airflow
equations. Approximate methods are presented that allow the
variables in the airflow equations to be replaced with equiva-
lent terms in the ground-water flow equations. The model
output is then transformed back to airflow terms.
1.2 This guide illustrates the major steps to take in devel-
oping an airflow model using an existing ground-water flow
modeling code. This guide does not recommend the use of a
particular model code. Most ground-water flow modeling
codes can be utilized, because the techniques described in this
guide require modification to model input and not to the code.
1.3 This guide is not intended to be all inclusive. Other
similar techniques may be applicable to airflow modeling, as
well as more complex variably saturated ground-water flow
modeling codes. This guide does not preclude the use of other
techniques, but presents techniques that can be easily applied
using existing ground-water flow modeling codes.
1.4 This guide is one of a series of standards on ground-
water model applications, including Guides D 5447 and
D 5490. This guide should be used in conjunction with Guide
D 5447. Other standards have been prepared on environmental
modeling, such as Practice E 978.
1.5 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the
standard.
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.7 This guide offers an organized collection of information
or a series of options and does not recommend a specific
course of action. This document cannot replace education or
experience and should be used in conjunction with professional
judgment. Not all aspects of this guide may be applicable in all
circumstances. This ASTM standard is not intended to repre-
1
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D18 on Soil and Rock
and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee D18.21 on Ground Water and
Vadose Investigations.
Current edition approved April 15, 1995. Published June 1995.
Copyright © ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
1
sent or replace the standard of care by which the adequacy of
a given professional service must be judged, nor should this
document be applied without consideration of a project’s many
unique aspects. The word “Standard” in the title of this
document means only that the document has been approved
through the ASTM consensus process.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Standards:
D 653 Terminology Relating to Soil, Rock, and Contained
Fluids2
D 5447 Guide for Application of a Ground-Water Flow
Model to a Site-Specific Problem3
D 5490 Guide for Comparing Ground-Water Flow Model
Simulations to Site-Specific Information3
E 978 Practice for Evaluating Environmental Fate Models
of Chemicals4
3. Terminology
3.1 Definitions:
3.1.1 boundary condition—a mathematical expression of a
state of the physical system that constrains the equations of the
mathematical model.
3.1.2 computer code (computer program)—the assembly of
numerical techniques, bookkeeping, and control language that
represents the model from acceptance of input data and
instructions to delivery of output.
3.1.3 ground-water flow model—application of a math-
ematical model to represent a site-specific ground-water flow
system.
3.1.4 mathematical model—( a) mathematical equations
expressing the physical system and including simplifying
assumptions, (b) the representation of a physical system by
mathematical expressions from which the behavior of the
system can be deduced with known accuracy.
3.1.5 model—an assembly of concepts in the form of
mathematical equations that portray understanding of a natural
phenomenon.
3.2 For definitions of other terms used in this guide, see
Terminology D 653.
2
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.08.
3
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.09.
4
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 11.04.
 D 5719
3.3 Symbols:Symbols and Dimensions:
3.3.1 A—cross-sectional area of cell [cm 2].
3.3.2 g—acceleration due to gravity [cm/s 2].
3.3.3 h—air-phase or water phase head [cm].
3.3.4 k—air phase permeability [cm2].
3.3.5 K—hydraulic conductivity [cm/s].
3.3.6 P—air phase pressure [g/cm-s2].
3.3.7 P0—reference air-phase pressure [g/cm-s2].
3.3.8 qs—specific discharge vector for air [cm/s].
3.3.9 q—volumetric flow of water through cell [cm3/s].
3.3.10 q*—model-computed term related to airflow in units
g2-cm/s4.
3.3.11 qv—volumetric airflow [cm 3/s].
3.3.12 qm—mass airflow [g/s].
3.3.13 R—universal gas constant = 8.314 3 10 7[g-cm2/s2-
mol-K].
3.3.14 Ss—specific storage of the porous material [cm−1].
3.3.15 t—time [s].
3.3.16 T—temperature [K].
3.3.17 W—volumetric flux per unit volume [s −1].
3.3.18 z—elevation head [cm].
3.3.19 ]h—hydraulic head difference [cm].
3.3.20 ]l—length of model cell [cm].
3.3.21 r—density of air [g/cm 3].
3.3.22 u—air-filled porosity [nd].
3.3.23 f—pressure-squared (P 2) [(g/cm-s2)2].
3.3.24 v—average molecular weight of air [g/mol].
3.3.25 µ—dynamic viscosity of air [g/cm-s].
4. Summary of Guide
4.1 The flow of gas (air in this case) through unsaturated
porous media can be approximated using ground-water flow
modeling codes. This is accomplished through substitution of
air-phase parameters and variables into the ground-water flow
equations. There are two substitution techniques discussed in
this guide, the pressure-squared technique (1), and the pressure
substitution technique (2). These substitutions are summarized
as follows:
4.1.1 The dependent variable, usually head, in the ground-
water flow equation becomes pressure or pressure-squared;
4.1.2 Saturated hydraulic conductivity ( K), both horizontal
and vertical components, becomes air permeability (k or
intrinsic permeability) in the pressure-squared technique and
an equivalent air hydraulic conductivity in the pressure substi-
tution technique.
4.1.3 Storage coefficient (S) becomes the air storage coeffi-
cient (Sa);
4.1.4 The Vadose zone is considered a confined aquifer;
and,
4.1.5 All boundary conditions are expressed in terms of air
pressure-squared, although constant flux boundary conditions
may be used in the pressure substitution technique.
4.2 The ground-water modeling code is executed using
these parameter and variable substitutions. The model results
must then be transformed to values representative of air. These
calculations are summarized as follows:
4.2.1 If the problem is formulated in terms of air pressure-
squared, the square root of the model-computed dependent
variable is computed at each cell;
2
4.2.2 Flow rates computed by the pressure-squared ap-
proach must be transformed into equivalent airflow terms for
volumetric flow rates (qv) or mass flow rates ( qm).
4.2.3 No transformation of the output is required by the
pressure substitution technique, although the pressures may be
converted to more convenient units.
5. Significance and Use
5.1 The use of vapor extraction systems (VES), also called
soil vapor extraction (SVE) or venting systems, is becoming a
common remedial technology applicable to sites contaminated
with volatile compounds (3, 4). A vapor extraction system is
composed of wells or trenches screened within the vadose
zone. Air is extracted from these wells to remove organic
compounds that readily partition between solid or liquid phases
into the gas phase. The volatile contaminants are removed in
the gas phase and treated or discharged to the atmosphere. In
many cases, the vapor extraction system also incorporates
wells open to the atmosphere that act as air injection wells.
NOTE 1—Few model codes are available that allow simulation of the
movement of air, water, and nonaqueous liquids through the subsurface.
Those model codes that are available (5, 6), require inordinate compute
hardware, are complicated to use, and require collection of field data that
may be difficult or expensive to obtain. In the future, as computer
capabilities expand, this may not be a significant problem. Today,
however, these complex models are not applied routinely to the design of
vapor extraction systems.
5.2 This guide presents approximate methods to efficiently
simulate the movement of air through the vadose zone. These
methods neglect the presence of water and other liquids in the
vadose zone; however, these techniques are much easier to
apply and require significantly less computer hardware than
more robust numerical models.
5.3 This guide should be used by ground-water modelers to
approximately simulate the movement of air in the vadose
zone.
5.4 Use of this guide to simulate subsurface air movement
does not guarantee that the airflow model is valid. This guide
simply describes mathematical techniques for simulating sub-
surface air movement with ground-water modeling codes. As
with any modeling study, the modeler must have a thorough
understanding of site conditions with supporting data in order
to properly apply the techniques presented in this guide.
6. Pressure-Squared Substitution Procedure
6.1 The pressure-squared substitution procedure is adapted
from Baehr and Joss (1). The technique allows simulation of
the flow of gas (air in this case) through porous media using
ground-water flow modeling codes. This is accomplished
through substitution of air-phase parameters and variables into
the ground-water flow equations. These substitutions are sum-
marized as follows:
6.2 Airflow Equation—The following presentation outlines
the essential assumptions of the airflow equation. A more
detailed presentation providing justification of the various
assumptions is provided by Baehr and Hult (7).
6.2.1 The conservation of mass equation for airflow in an
unsaturated porous medium is given by the following:

] pressure differences less than 0.2 atm, but are quite large for
]t ~ru! 1 π·~r ; qs! 5 0
6.2.2 Darcy’s Law for airflow is assumed as follows:
rg
; qs 5 2 µ ' k πh
6.2.3 Hubbert (1940) defined the head for a compressible
fluid as follows:
* rdP
1 P1
h5z1g
P0
6.2.4 The Ideal Gas Law is assumed to relate pressure and
density and thus provides a model for air compressibility as
follows:
vP
r 5 RT
6.2.5 Substituting Eq 4 into Eq 3, assuming v and T are
constant, neglecting the elevation component of head (that is
small for air compared to the pressure component) and
substituting into Eq 2 gives the following expression for
Darcy’s Law in terms of P:
1 assumptions presented in 6.2.9. The authors found that the
; qs 5 2 µ ' k πP
6.2.6 Substituting Eq 4 and Eq 5 into Eq 1, and then using
the following linearizing change of variable suggested by
Muskat and Botset (8) for airflow:
f 5 P2
yields the following three-dimensional airflow equation in
Cartesian coordinates that is analogous in form to the ground-
water flow equation solved by many ground-water flow models
(MODFLOW (9), for example):
]
S D S D S D
]f ] ]f ] ]f ]f
]x k xx ]x 1 ]y kyy ]y 1 ]z kzz ]z 5 S a ]t
where, x, y, and z are Cartesian coordinates aligned along the
major axes of the permeability tensor with diagonal compo-
nents k xx, kyy, and kzz.
6.2.7 Air-phase permeability is assumed to be independent
of P, therefore, the Klinkenberg slip effect (10) can only be
modeled as constant with respect to P. The coefficient Sais the
pneumatic equivalent of specific storage and if air-filled
porosity is constant with respect to time (that is, water
movement is neglected) then:
uµ
Sa 5
=f
6.2.8 The change of variable f = P2 results in a linear
equation for steady-state airflow. The transient equation is
linearized by assuming f1/2 = Patm in the definition of Sa,
where Patm is the prevailing atmospheric pressure.
6.2.8.1 Massmann (2) describes the errors involved with the
pressure-squared substitution described above, as well as
simply substituting pressure for head. The error in the pressure-
squared substitution is less than 1 % when the pressure
difference between any two points in the flow field is less than
0.2 atmospheres (atm) and less than 5 % when the pressure
difference is less than 0.8 atm. When substituting pressure
(instead of pressure-squared) for head, the errors are similar for
D 5719
(1)
pressure differences greater than 0.5 atm. In most cases, the
pressure differences will be less than 0.2 atm; therefore, either
substitution may be used in environmental modeling (see
(2) Section 7 for a description of the pressure substitution tech-
nique).
6.2.9 Eq 7 can be directly compared to the linear ground-
water flow equation. The simplifying assumptions needed to
arrive at this linear airflow equation are summarized as
(3)
follows:
6.2.9.1 Darcy’s law is valid for airflow;
6.2.9.2 The elevation component of pneumatic head is
neglected;
6.2.9.3 Temperature effects are neglected;
(4) 6.2.9.4 The Ideal Gas law is a valid model for compress-
ibility;
6.2.9.5 The Klinkenberg slip effect is neglected;
6.2.9.6 Water movement and consolidation are neglected,
therefore porosity is constant with respect to time; and
6.2.9.7 f1/2 = Patm in definition of storage coefficient Sa.
6.2.10 Baehr and Hult (7) examined the consequences of the
(5) linear airflow model given by Eq 7 is a good working model for
essentially all environmental applications.
6.3 Ground-Water Flow Equation—The following ground-
water flow equation is solved by many ground-water flow
models:
S D S D S D
(6)
] ]h ] ]h ] ]h ]h
]x Kxx ]x 1 ]y Kyy]y 1 ]z Kzz ]z 2 W 5 S s ]t (9)
where: x, y, and z are Cartesian coordinates aligned along the
major axes of the hydraulic conductivity tensor with diagonal
components Kxx, Kyy, K zz.
(7)
6.3.1 The purpose of the procedure presented in this guide is
to facilitate airflow simulations by matching Eq 7 and Eq 9 so
that the numerical solution coded in ground-water flow models
can be used to solve the airflow equation. This is accomplished
with the following parameter matches:
h⇒f (10)
K⇒k (11)
S s ⇒ Sa (12)
6.3.2 The parameter matching allows the hydraulic head
and flow output from the ground-water model to be interpreted
for the airflow model in accordance with 6.3.
(8) 6.4 Boundary Conditions—There are only two permissible
types of boundary conditions when using the pressure-squared
substitution described above. These include constant pressure
and no-flow boundaries.
6.4.1 Constant pressure cells are actually constant pressure-
squared cells. Constant pressure cells are used in two ways:
6.4.1.1 Constant pressure cells are set around the perimeter
of the model to allow air to flow into the model horizontally,
and
6.4.1.2 Venting wells and trenches are defined as constant
pressure cells where the pressure is the absolute pressure
(squared) maintained in the venting well.
6.4.2 An extra layer of constant pressure cells should be
added at the top of the model domain to simulate the
3
 D 5719
connection between the vadose zone and the atmosphere. The
cells in this top layer and the constant pressure cells around the
qv 5 q* S 1
2µ=f D (18)

outside of the model are maintained at the prevailing atmo- 6.6.6 Therefore to obtain components of volumetric airflow,
spheric pressure (squared). To make sure that the model covers the head output file must be combined with the flow output as
a sufficiently large area around the venting system, at least indicated by Eq 16 Eq 17 Eq 18.
90 % of the air inflow to the model should come from the top
6.6.7 Mass air flow rate is given by:
atmospheric layer (as opposed to the lateral edges of the
model) (1). qm 5 rqv (19)
6.4.3 Wells and trenches should be maintained at a constant 6.6.8 Substituting the ideal gas law, Eq 4 into Eq 19 and
value of f. The ground-water flow model will then compute a then substituting into Eq 17, yields the following
flow rate (q*) that must be transformed to a volumetric airflow
v ]P
rate (qv) or mass flow rate ( qm) in accordance with Eq 18 and qm 5 2kAP µRT ]l (20)
Eq 21, respectively.
6.4.4 No-flow boundaries are normally prescribed along the 6.6.9 Therefore, qm is given as follows:
base of the model representing the water table or boundary
with the saturated aquifer system. No-flow cells may also be S D
v
qm 5 q* 2µRT (21)
used to represent foundations, paved areas, or other subsurface
6.6.10 Therefore to obtain components of mass airflow, the
material impermeable to air.
ground-water flow output values for q* is multiplied by the
6.5 Interpretation of Model Head Output—As a result of the
term appearing in Eq 21.
parameter matches discussed in 6.2, cell values of f = P2 will
be computed by the ground-water flow model. Taking the 7. Pressure Substitution Procedure
square root of the head output values gives the pressure
distribution for the airflow simulation. 7.1 The pressure substitution technique is adapted from
6.6 Interpretation of Model Flow Output—Ground-water Massmann (2) and is simpler to apply than the pressure-
flow models compute cell by cell components of flow vectors squared substitution technique. As stated in 6.8.2.1 , however,
that need to be interpreted to obtain airflow rates. Most the pressure substitution technique is only valid when the
ground-water flow modeling codes (MODFLOW (9), for pressure difference between any two points in the system is less
example) calculate components of airflow rates as follows: than about 0.2 atm.
]h 7.2 The pressure substitution technique makes the following
q 5 2KA ]l (13) substitutions into Eq 9 (the ground-water flow equation):
6.6.1 Based on the transformations given by Eq 10 and Eq rgk
K5 µ (22)
11, flow output corresponds to the following terms for an
airflow simulation: gvu
Ss 5 RT
]f
q* 5 2kA ]l (14) P
h 5 rg
where: q* is the flow term computed by the model and
related to airflow in units g2-cm/s4. 7.3 These substitutions are straightforward; however, gas
6.6.2 To relate q* to air flow, recognize that: composition is often unknown. In that case, the density (r),
viscosity (µ), and molecular weight (v) of air may be assumed
]f ]~P 2! ]P
as follows:
]l 5 ]l 5 2P ]l (15)
7.3.1 r (air) = 1.3 3 10 −3 g/cm3.
6.6.3 Substituting Eq 15 into 14 gives: 7.3.2 µ (air) = 1.8 3 10 −4 g/cm/s (0.018 cP).
]P 7.3.3 v (air) = 28 g/mol.
q* 5 2kAP ]l (16)
7.3.4 Also note that g = 980 cm/s 2 and k may be obtained
6.6.4 From Eq 5, Darcy’s Law for volumetric airflow is as from estimates of saturated hydraulic conductivity as k
follows: = 1.02 3 10 −5K.
kA]P
qv 5 µ ]l (17) 8. Keywords
6.6.5 Therefore, the ground-water model flow output q* is 8.1 airflow; computer model; ground water; simulation; soil
converted as follows: venting

4
 D 5719
REFERENCES

(1) Baehr, A. L., and Joss, C. J., AIR3D—An Adaptation of the Ground
Water Flow Code MODFLOW to Simulate Three Dimensional Air
Flow in the Unsaturated Zone, American Petroleum Institute, Wash-
ington, DC, 1992.
(2) Massmann, J. W., “Applying Groundwater Flow Models in Vapor
Extraction System Design,” Journal of Environmental Engineering,
Vol 115, No. 1, 1989, pp. 129–149.
(3) Crow, W. L., Anderson, E. P., and Minugh, E., “Subsurface Venting of
Hydrocarbon Vapors from a Underground Aquifer,” American Petro-
leum Institute, Washington, DC, 1985.
(4) Baehr, A. L., Hoag, G. E., and Marley, M. C.,“ Removing Volatile
Contaminants from the Unsaturated Zone by Inducing Advective
Air-Phase Transport, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology,” Vol 4, 1989,
pp. 1–26.
(5) Sleep, B. E., and Sykes, J. F., “Modeling the Transport of Volatile
Organics in Variably Saturated Media,” Water Resources Research, Vol
25, No. 1, 1989, pp. 81–92.
(6) Corapcioglu, M. Y., and Baehr, A. L., “A Compositional Multiphase
Model for Groundwater Contamination by Petroleum Products; 1.
Theoretical Considerations,” Water Resources Research, Vol 23, No. 1,
1987, pp. 191–200.
(7) Baehr, A. L., and Hult, M. F., “Evaluation of Unsaturated-Zone Air
Permeability Through Pneumatic Tests,” Water Resources Research,
Vol 27, No. 10, 1991, pp. 85–106.
(8) Muskat, M., and Botset, H. G., “Flow of Gas Through Porous
Materials,” Physics, Vol 1, 1931, pp. 27–47.
(9) McDonald, M. G., and Harbaugh, A. W., “A Modular Three-
Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model,” U.S. Geo-
logical Survey, TWRI, Book 6, Chapter , 1988.
(10) Klinkenberg, L. J., The Permeability of Porous Media to Liquids and
Gases, Drilling and Production Practice, American Petroleum Insti-
tute, Washington, DC, 1941, pp. 200–213.

The American Society for Testing and Materials takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection
with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such
patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.

This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and
if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards
and should be addressed to ASTM Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible
technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your
views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below.

This standard is copyrighted by ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at
610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org).